So far, Dani Rodrik's blog has been extremely interesting. In a post today, he says that the issue of "whether we should increase trade restrictions or lower them" is part of the "old debate," and then suggests that today's questions are different:
Should the U.S. negotiate more bilateral free trade agreements, or fewer? Should we consider a “strategic pause” in trade negotiations to improve the functioning of the WTO or push hard on the existing Doha agenda? Should core labor standards and environmental safeguards be negotiated jointly with trade agreements? How much “policy space” should the WTO allow for? Should labor mobility be part of international trade agreements? How much quid pro quo should the developing countries offer “in return” for agricultural liberalization in the North? Does competition policy and investment belong in the WTO? Should intellectual property rights protection rules be different for developing nations? None of these questions maps neatly into the more-versus-less restriction dichotomy.
I definitely agree with him that these questions are important. I'm not so sure that high versus low trade restrictions is part of the "old debate," though. Whether to raise or lower trade barriers is still a hotly contested issue.
The key, I think, is that when discussing these issues, it is important to distinguish between the traditional free trade versus protectionism argument and the new issues he points to. For example, you can be for lower tariffs but against international intellectual property protection through the WTO, or vice versa. Or you can be for both or against both. When the issues get blurred together, however, the discussion sometimes loses its clarity.
